The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.

Katare wrote:It did not saar.....here is what it said, directly from the CAG report (No DDM involved)

Audit noted that aircraft of none of the six vendors that participated in the tender, couldmeet all the ASQR parameters in technical evaluation. ASQRs parameters werenarrowly defined. In some cases they were also not clearly defined.

Not necessarily This is from the CAG Report. But Karan Saar has explained that bit about the ASQR.

61 is talking about the technical evaluation of the bid documents. Field trials happen after that where it failed and got rejected. I did say credit for it goes to Russian babus who filled out the bid documents.

The PLAAF is expanding/modernizing at an ever increasing pace. Beyond 2030 even the IAF's upgraded Flankers will have their hands full dealing with the PLAAF. One has to assume that both the J-20 and J-31 will be fielded in large numbers by then. One should also assume that the WS-13 & WS-15 engines are mature by then. Also assume that the PLAAF in sheer numbers will be vastly larger than the IAF. And so the IAF has to have a qualitative edge to compensate. What form will that qualitative edge take? Will just 36 or 72 Rafale be adequate? How will the capabilities of the AMCA compare? Does it make sense for India to seek collaboration for aircraft? Or specific technologies? With the French it is effectively a vendor-buyer relationship across the spectrum from the airframe to engines to sensors to weapons with no real incentive for them to be flexible.

fanne wrote:I think the calculation is wrong. 36 Raf comes at 5 billion. Why would you again pay 2 billion for India Specific enhancement (I believe this was money for developing India specific enhancement). If they are equipment then yes, 2 B needs to be added.

I believe that $2 billion includes the equipment + development. So yes, that number could very well be revised downwards.

Katare wrote:61 is talking about the technical evaluation of the bid documents. Field trials happen after that where it failed and got rejected. I did say credit for it goes to Russian babus who filled out the bid documents.

Katare, thank you for clarifying that. Now that will make Austin really sad!

Karan M wrote:You do realize, that even if the above were true, which is highly debatable, the authors taken rather creative liberties with his analysis... IAF now has a complete 360 degree understanding of the 5 of the world's premier platforms, 2 of which, at one time or the other, were either on offer or in service, in a variant, in an adversary force. So no, it was not a collective waste of money and time.

You can argue the specific details, but the point as a whole is still valid. The IAF never wanted anything else except French fighters, and it wanted to avoid the others so badly that it repeatedly risked getting the entire competition cancelled, which would put its future acquisition in disarray. In the end, the competition had to be cancelled, and the IAF ended up with just a small fraction of aircraft planned to be bought.

Apart from the F-16, knowledge of the rest is pretty much worthless to us in the battlefield. Even that knowledge is not something that we only get with MMRCA. The cost of a 14+ year delay in acquisition is so large that it's absurd to even compare them.

ldev wrote:The PLAAF is expanding/modernizing at an ever increasing pace. Beyond 2030 even the IAF's upgraded Flankers will have their hands full dealing with the PLAAF. One has to assume that both the J-20 and J-31 will be fielded in large numbers by then. One should also assume that the WS-13 & WS-15 engines are mature by then. Also assume that the PLAAF in sheer numbers will be vastly larger than the IAF. And so the IAF has to have a qualitative edge to compensate. What form will that qualitative edge take? Will just 36 or 72 Rafale be adequate? How will the capabilities of the AMCA compare? Does it make sense for India to seek collaboration for aircraft? Or specific technologies? With the French it is effectively a vendor-buyer relationship across the spectrum from the airframe to engines to sensors to weapons with no real incentive for them to be flexible.

All valid concerns that the IAF has taken into consideration, but is still forging ahead with a contest for 4+ generation fighters. The IAF is not too impressed with China’s 5th generation tech. VLO platforms is not just slapping on some sharp angles on a plane and voila it becomes stealth! The US of A - the leader in the field - has invested decades and billions of dollars of R&D into this. No amount of xerox copying can replicate knowledge.

On collaboration, no country is going to give India anything of value on VLO tech. With regards to your last sentence, I can replace the word French with any other nation and the statement would still hold true. Unless you have some evidence that proves otherwise.

The marketing spin from Boeing, Lockheed and Saab of transforming India into an aviation powerhouse from assembling their fighter is pure hogwash.

The Eurofighter consortium is largely silent on this issue. One does not have to be an Einstein to figure out why. Mikoyan and Sukhoi are Russian and Dassault would prefer to keep Rafale production in France.

sahay wrote:You can argue the specific details, but the point as a whole is still valid.

How is the point valid if the details are wrong? Never works in any sort of analysis. X, Y, Z are wrong, but C the conclusion drawing from XYZ is correct.

The IAF never wanted anything else except French fighters, and it wanted to avoid the others so badly that it repeatedly risked getting the entire competition cancelled, which would put its future acquisition in disarray. In the end, the competition had to be cancelled, and the IAF ended up with just a small fraction of aircraft planned to be bought.

Please point out where & how the IAF specifically did this. From what I see, rather than Saurabh Joshi's sweeping assertions, I just see the IAF ensuring that the Rafale was not dropped on tenuous grounds & also, MOD analysts/personnel extrapolating costs based on 1 vendor to another. Inaccurate but hardly any IAF conspiracy.

Apart from the F-16, knowledge of the rest is pretty much worthless to us in the battlefield.

This is absurd. How are we to predict whom we will face on the battlefield? Surely you must be aware that even the Gripen was being hawked heavily to the Pakistanis & in years past so was the EF. And at least two "allied" countries to the Pakistanis field the advanced Viper & the EF as well. Besides which, it has a direct role in how we develop our systems and how we shape our strategy.

Even that knowledge is not something that we only get with MMRCA.

That knowledge is something you ONLY get via the MMRCA because IAF pilots fly the airframes and IAF is privy to classified details about their performance, sensor suite, weapons and their performance as well.

The cost of a 14+ year delay in acquisition is so large that it's absurd to even compare them.

What is actually absurd is your insistence that it was all due to the IAF without any proof whatsoever, bar one set of articles by one guy who reinterprets the CAG report in a creative manner to push his agenda whatever it is.

Karan, I think my original point, which got lost in our back and forth, was to counter Austin's assertion that the IAF is a fighter jock's club who don't care about fleet rationalization, logistical difficulties etc. That is definitely not the case as far as the MMRCA competition was concerned since they did not even want that competition in the first place and only wanted to buy an already existing type in large numbers.

Karan M wrote:Be as it may, it was the right thing to have done. The Mirage 2000 V Mk2 was fundamentally a platform with no growth path because the OEM vendor has a competing product they wish to push hard & they provide no support for 3rd party systems integration which we have to do on our own. Even the upgraded Mirages (ironically) are not compatible with some key items which were present on the non upgraded Mirages, having been integrated by India on its own.

The AF is unfortunately often not in a case that it knows what it needs better than the MOD baboos and vice versa. Both were locked in a dysfunctional, adversarial relationship without a proper policy led from the top down that looks at threats far into the future, immediate and tomorrows needs and leads them. This is a bane of the Indian set up, the French for instance know exactly what their limitations are, their sensor grid is, national requirements are, and create a Rafale tailored to that. The Russians know what they expect of their VVS, and then create a Su-30 from a Su-27 and so forth. We buy stuff. And when you buy stuff, you take what's available and sometime's whats available is either limited or just wont meet your needs for tomorrow.The IA purchased the T-90. Today, they have a RFI out saying well, we just discovered the tank guns are at an evolutionary dead end and we need to replace the guns. This after they released RFIs asking for better ammo and finally realized what the DRDO/ROW developers were hollering.So, there is definitely a huge dysfunction in our system wherein we buy what "we can get" for "yesterdays wars" (read Kargil) & run the risk of missing tomorrows conflicts.

What you say is true. ON the other hand, despite the lack of support for integration, the IAF still chose the M2k for rapidly integrating the LGB's during Kargil. We had 2 platforms in large numbers which were supposed to be our premier strike jets - Mig-27 and Jaguar. Yet we could not use either and had to turn to the Mirages when push came to shove. And the aircraft came through with flying colors. 20 years later, we still see the IAF turning to them immediately when the time came to fire a shot in anger. Clearly the IAF is extremely impressed with the performance of the aircraft in actual battle conditions and their reliability as well (despite using some of the oldest engines in the fleet no less). It made perfect sense to ask for large numbers of these back when the IAF put forward the proposal in the aftermath of the Kargil war.

Remember the original MRCA was never supposed to be the tip of the spear or the most advanced aircraft int he fleet. That job went to the MKI which was being customized with some freedom by the IAF and inducted in large numbers. The MRCA was to fill up the numbers and provide a cheaper to operate and maintain fleet of multi-role jets with decent performance. The M2k fit the bill perfectly. Plus, being an existing type it would not face any of the issues a new type invariable does during induction and operationalization.

Now coming to affordability/unaffordability.. would a Mirage 2000 V purchase have been that much cheaper? Take a look at the Mirage 2000 upgrades or the UAE 2000-9 purchase, with TOT, weapons packages etc .. it would have been a bomb even so.So in the same vein about unintended consequences.. the IAF asked for something which was "more affordable" but it was not their primary aim. Their aim was to get an immediate combat boost because at the time, the Su-30s were in a torrid state serviceability wise (Su-30 Ks), the MKI had many many teething issues & Mirage 2000 had done a great job at Kargil.Even today, can Mirage 2000s with Mica necessarily have an edge against Pakistani F-16s.. not necessarily unless we go passive, sneak around and Mica-IR them. In head on comparisons, the AMRAAM + AIDEWS equipped F-16 may have an edge or be equivalent against our upgraded Mirages.So, the MOD's critical failure & to an extent, the IAFs has been to not set up this proper long term intrinsic threat & tech forecasting cell which worked with chosen vendors, Indian & abroad over a long term to come up with specific solutions for its long term needs. Instead of buy-modify-didn't like-buysomethingelse-MOD says run out of money etc.

No the M2k's don't come cheap but you get what you pay for. The IAF had a fair idea of both their performance and serviceability and were satisfied with both. Back in the early 2000's the memory of post-pokhran sanctions were still fresh. I doubt the prospect of looking at any American aircraft had crossed anyone's mind in the IAF. Their entry into the later multi-vendor procurement was also a surprise. So what options did they have? The only realistic ones were the M2k and Mig-29M. The Mig-29's hanger-queen days in the 90's were not so long ago and the IAF clearly did not want to go through that pain again. They had already decided on the MKI as the top tier of the IAF so looking at cutting edge (and expensive) fighters like the Rafale and EF did not make sense. And if we can't afford more than 36 Rafales today, pining for 126 back then would be foolish. Unfortunately that is exactly what we ended up doing thanks to the DPP which provides no scope of looking at financial bids and doing a realistic assessment of own financial capacity compared to that, before the technical downselect is done.

As for an edge over the AMRAAM armed F-16s, there isn't a single fighter in the IAF today which has a decisive edge over them, and, as you say, is the result of the IAF dropping the ball on this matter and not taking the threat seriously enough. In the next few years, we will have a puny 2 squadrons of fighters which will finally have a real advantage. In return for that we gave up having a 160 strong fleet of M2k-5's all through this decade and part of the last one. Best is the enemy of good enough applies in this case IMHO.

Even if they were acquired 15 years ago, they would have to remain in service for another 25 years, what of the roadmap then? Can these fighters be upgraded today, to meet what we are seeing with the PLAAF's advanced Flankers? <snip>

This is true, but remember that the aircraft that was supposed to give us parity or an advantage over the PLAAF's stealth jets was the FGFA which never materialized. The MMRCA was not meant for that. Even the Rafale will struggle against a true LO 5th gen aircraft although the real world capabilities of the J-20 and J-31 are not yet known.

In any case, we are debating a path never taken. I realize it does not help much now. All I hope for is that we somehow find the money and political will to buy 2 more squadrons of Rafales so that this procurement makes sense.

ldev wrote:The PLAAF is expanding/modernizing at an ever increasing pace. Beyond 2030 even the IAF's upgraded Flankers will have their hands full dealing with the PLAAF. One has to assume that both the J-20 and J-31 will be fielded in large numbers by then. One should also assume that the WS-13 & WS-15 engines are mature by then. Also assume that the PLAAF in sheer numbers will be vastly larger than the IAF. And so the IAF has to have a qualitative edge to compensate. What form will that qualitative edge take? Will just 36 or 72 Rafale be adequate? How will the capabilities of the AMCA compare? Does it make sense for India to seek collaboration for aircraft? Or specific technologies? With the French it is effectively a vendor-buyer relationship across the spectrum from the airframe to engines to sensors to weapons with no real incentive for them to be flexible.

All valid concerns that the IAF has taken into consideration, but is still forging ahead with a contest for 4+ generation fighters. The IAF is not too impressed with China’s 5th generation tech. VLO platforms is not just slapping on some sharp angles on a plane and voila it becomes stealth! The US of A - the leader in the field - has invested decades and billions of dollars of R&D into this. No amount of xerox copying can replicate knowledge.

On collaboration, no country is going to give India anything of value on VLO tech. With regards to your last sentence, I can replace the word French with any other nation and the statement would still hold true. Unless you have some evidence that proves otherwise.

The marketing spin from Boeing, Lockheed and Saab of transforming India into an aviation powerhouse from assembling their fighter is pure hogwash.

The Eurofighter consortium is largely silent on this issue. One does not have to be an Einstein to figure out why. Mikoyan and Sukhoi are Russian and Dassault would prefer to keep Rafale production in France.

There is no collaboration - just a buyer-seller relationship.

I was thinking more along the lines of BAE's "6th" generation project Tempest. Supposedly BAE was going to make a presentation to MOD/IAF at Aero India in February. I wonder if that happened.

The project is in it's very early stage, with a tentative in service date of 2035, (although I wonder how real that date is), and while BAE is going to be the lead with Rolls Royce providing a new "adaptive cycle" engine, MBDA for the armament which will include directed energy weapons besides missiles and Leonardo (formerly Selex) has been roped in for sensors, EW equipment etc/. I think it is still very early days and India has the potential to get in at the ground level. The plane will be capable of controlling a swarm of UCAVs and the objective at this stage is also for it to be "optionally piloted". IMO, what this means is absolutely enormous amounts of coding for the software necessary to control the aircraft, it's sensors, weapons and associated UCAVs. I believe that for a so called 6th generation project, a "software systems integrator" will become as important a functional contributor as MBDA, Rolls Royce, Leonardo and BAE. Again supposedly the reason that BAE IS interested in India was the software intensive nature of the project besides of course a guaranteed purchase of the end aircraft.

From a political standpoint, I think it fit's in with India's requirements. Unlike the F35, the future US advanced aircraft which will succeed both the F22 and the F35 is going to be exclusive to US companies. in Dassault, France has a national champion and I do not believe that they want to collaborate with any third party. Also, I think just like the M2000 the Rafale will also eventually reach an "end of the road" situation with no further upgrades available and the IAF will be left with a M2000 redux for future Rafale upgrades. Granted, that situation is 15 years away, but that is why the IAF should be looking out into the future as to what could replace/augment the SU30s. As far as collaboration with Russia is concerned, I think it is a "been there done that" scenario for India. And that bring us back to the Brits who are themselves looking at staying relevant in fighter aircraft tech. By the way, MBDA is collaborating with Japan on a new Joint New Air to Air Missile. And BAE has also made a presentation to Japan on the Tempest.

Karan M wrote:How is the point valid if the details are wrong? Never works in any sort of analysis. X, Y, Z are wrong, but C the conclusion drawing from XYZ is correct.

Are you arguing that the details are wrong? You can only argue the interpretation, not the facts. The facts are that Rafale was repeatedly given multiple concessions. Each of them could have been justified in isolation, but when taken as a whole, it starts to look like there's something wrong.

Please point out where & how the IAF specifically did this. From what I see, rather than Saurabh Joshi's sweeping assertions, I just see the IAF ensuring that the Rafale was not dropped on tenuous grounds & also, MOD analysts/personnel extrapolating costs based on 1 vendor to another. Inaccurate but hardly any IAF conspiracy.

Two of the costliest bids got picked for a requirement that was originally meant for Mirage 2000. One of the rejection criteria was entirely subjective, while the other was not informed to the bidders and was left undocumented. If any of the other contenders, with the probable exception of F/A-18, had made the shortlist, there was no chance of Rafale being L-1.

Rafale's bid was incomplete, allowing it to be incorrectly judged as the lowest bidder. MoD officials would never have had to extrapolate if Dassault had submitted all the requested details. If there were more than 2 jets shortlisted, Dassault's bid could have been easily rejected without risking cancellation due to "single vendor". Even after all this, there were still intractable issues due to Dassault's refusal to warranty as required by the RFP, leading to MMRCA's cancellation.

This is absurd. How are we to predict whom we will face on the battlefield? Surely you must be aware that even the Gripen was being hawked heavily to the Pakistanis & in years past so was the EF. And at least two "allied" countries to the Pakistanis field the advanced Viper & the EF as well. Besides which, it has a direct role in how we develop our systems and how we shape our strategy.

That knowledge is something you ONLY get via the MMRCA because IAF pilots fly the airframes and IAF is privy to classified details about their performance, sensor suite, weapons and their performance as well.

AFAIK, Saab dropped its pitch when Pakistan started buying JF-17 and has been entirely focussed on India. You really have to be digging deep to find a silver lining to say that knowledge of jets that Pakistan might have access to is worth a long and tortuous bid program. This isn't the 60s and 70s any more, India's economic power far outstrips Pakistan's, making overt material support to it unappealing.

What is actually absurd is your insistence that it was all due to the IAF without any proof whatsoever, bar one set of articles by one guy who reinterprets the CAG report in a creative manner to push his agenda whatever it is.

You can attribute blame for Dassault being incorrectly chosen as L-1 to MoD instead of IAF, but the technical evaluation was entirely IAF's responsibility. The IAF also publicly rejected Parrikar's plans to buy more Su-30MKI to cover for MMRCA's cancellation and insisted on Rafale, which led to the emergency buy.

ldev wrote:I was thinking more along the lines of BAE's "6th" generation project Tempest. Supposedly BAE was going to make a presentation to MOD/IAF at Aero India in February. I wonder if that happened.

The project is in it's very early stage, with a tentative in service date of 2035, (although I wonder how real that date is), and while BAE is going to be the lead with Rolls Royce providing a new "adaptive cycle" engine, MBDA for the armament which will include directed energy weapons besides missiles and Leonardo (formerly Selex) has been roped in for sensors, EW equipment etc/. I think it is still very early days and India has the potential to get in at the ground level. The plane will be capable of controlling a swarm of UCAVs and the objective at this stage is also for it to be "optionally piloted". IMO, what this means is absolutely enormous amounts of coding for the software necessary to control the aircraft, it's sensors, weapons and associated UCAVs. I believe that for a so called 6th generation project, a "software systems integrator" will become as important a functional contributor as MBDA, Rolls Royce, Leonardo and BAE. Again supposedly the reason that BAE IS interested in India was the software intensive nature of the project besides of course a guaranteed purchase of the end aircraft.

From a political standpoint, I think it fit's in with India's requirements. Unlike the F35, the future US advanced aircraft which will succeed both the F22 and the F35 is going to be exclusive to US companies. in Dassault, France has a national champion and I do not believe that they want to collaborate with any third party. Also, I think just like the M2000 the Rafale will also eventually reach an "end of the road" situation with no further upgrades available and the IAF will be left with a M2000 redux for future Rafale upgrades. Granted, that situation is 15 years away, but that is why the IAF should be looking out into the future as to what could replace/augment the SU30s. As far as collaboration with Russia is concerned, I think it is a "been there done that" scenario for India. And that bring us back to the Brits who are themselves looking at staying relevant in fighter aircraft tech. By the way, MBDA is collaborating with Japan on a new Joint New Air to Air Missile. And BAE has also made a presentation to Japan on the Tempest.

Just some food for thought.

I had this discussion in the Indian Military Aviation thread.

There are a number of reasons why England (Maasa's Poodle) is eager to find a partner for the Tempest program.

Some of them are;

1) Brexit has turned out to be a disaster and will leave the UK, weaker than when it was in the EU. The foolishness of protectionism which stems from the likes of Mr Stable Genius - Donald Trump.

2) In light of the above, the UK cannot fund the development of the Tempest program all on her own. She is too broke to afford this. She needs a partner(s) to also develop the aircraft, otherwise it will never see the light of day.

3) The Eurofighter Tyhpoon is largely hobbled by a four nation consortium that cannot agree on ANYTHING. France was prescient to see that disaster occurring and walked out of the program in the 1980s. And thank goodness it did. See where the Typhoon is today and see where the Rafale is. Night and Day. They need a new program desperately and do not want to repeat the Eurofighter mistake.

You mentioned ---> "Does it make sense for India to seek collaboration for aircraft?"

We have been "collaborating" on many Western and Russian platforms over a number of decades. What have we learnt from the "collaboration" of the following programs?

All of the above have been built by HAL under license production, over the past 7+ decades. All of them.

But despite HAL doing screwdrivergiri on the above programs, as of 16 March 2019, this is the reality --->

1] The HAL Tejas Mk1 uses a General Electric F404 engine. 2] The HAL Dhruv uses a Safran Ardiden turboshaft which HAL gleefully calls Shakti! 3] The HAL HJT-36 IJT uses a SNECMA Larzac or a Saturn/UMPO AL-55I turbofan. 4] The Jaguar engines - the Adour Mk 811 and Mk 871 - were license produced by HAL. 5] The Do 228 engines - the Honeywell TPE331 - were licensed produced by HAL.6] The Su-30MKI uses a AL-31FP turbofan which HAL proudly claims is built from the raw material stage.

So HAL has been building engines and aircraft, but India has yet to taste success in the Kaveri program. Have we asked ourselves why that is the case? No nation - Russia, France or UK, US - is willing to give India engine tech or radar tech or any other valuable tech. And to be very honest, why should they? Why even expect this? Even the much hyped JETJWG (Jet Engine Technology Joint Working Group) between India and the US was shut down, because neither side could come to a mutually agreeable technology sharing agreement.

So what collaboration are you expecting on the Tempest program? What do you see different?

Many get duped - on this forum, in the media and even in the govt - into this ToT (Transfer of Technology) nonsense. Never before has a term been so maligned and misunderstood as ToT has been. There has never been Transfer of Technology to India and never will be. Why should any OEM share their technology - which is billions of dollars and decades of R&D - with India? What is the plus in that? There has only existed Transfer of Production to India. Transferring a production line means nothing. That is what Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Saab are proposing in the current MMRCA contest and that is because our MoD Babus are insisting on such. These OEMs are taking India for a ride because are Babus are too dumb to know otherwise.

You are talking about coding, software, pilot controlled UCAVs, etc. But those are already in the works by HAL in the proposed SPORT program. See this video, if you already have not ---> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Mze7z-N9Gg

Tomorrow that will be incorporated into the AMCA program. What do we need to join the UK for? As a side note, the real "collaboration" lies with Indian firms (both public and private) in developing the Tejas as you will understand from the above video. Further development of the Tejas program causes a lot of takleef to the American apologists on BRF. One even argued that the Tejas program was a commendable effort, but there is no wisdom in developing Tejas Mk 2. But from a single Tejas program, India now has an in development Mk1A program, Mk2 program and a proposed SPORT program.

From a political standpoint, joining the Tempest program will be a nightmare for India. It does not fit into India's requirements and we will be saddled with an over-bloated Britshit cow like the Eurofighter Typhoon. And by the way, Dassault of France is partnering with Airbus of Germany on the New Generation Fighter to replace the Rafale and Eurofighter in the coming decades.

Joining the Tempest program, will be PAK-FA redux all over again. We will waste far more than $250 million (that we invested in the PAK-FA program) and get zero return. Rolls Royce is going to provide nothing of value on the engine i.e. the hot engine component. Leonardo S.p.A. is not about to establish a GaN foundry in India. We will get a screwdrivergiri factory - which is nice to show to a gullible public - in an annual MoD Brochure, but otherwise has zero value. All the valuable tech will come directly from the UK and other nations, which we will just assemble onto the air frame.

You think Maasa is going to allow the UK to give us this tech? England has no say of its own and will dutifully listen to whatever Maasa tells them. And whatever yarns and fables they write in a contract, none of it can ever be enforced by India. It is better off to buy a fifth generation platform (although Tempest is reportedly a sixth generation one) off the shelf if such a need arises and our own program - AMCA - is not ready. The F-35 is out of the question because of the S-400 missile system. Otherwise there will be strict end user agreements on its usage and its theatre of operations - something India may not necessarily agree to.

The goal should now be no more of this assembly/screwdrivergiri nonsense. Buy foreign platforms - if required - off the shelf and get offsets via components. And secondly, serious investment and a corresponding vision need to exist to develop our own turbofan and turboshaft programs for future variants of the Tejas, AMCA, HJT-36 IJT, HAL Dhruv and HAL's IMRH program.

The UK wants to stay relevant in fighter aircraft tech because it makes political sense to keep BAe employed. They were a major partner in the Joint Strike Fighter program (F-35) and will continue to invest money to keep the F-35 relevant. And if a future UK Govt had to do a budget choice between the F-35 and the Tempest program, which do you think has a greater chance of survival? An actual working, in-service aircraft or some model in development? Where will that leave India then? I sincerely hope the Japanese are not that gullible to join the Tempest program. They are already invested in the F-35 program.

sahay wrote:Are you arguing that the details are wrong? You can only argue the interpretation, not the facts. The facts are that Rafale was repeatedly given multiple concessions. Each of them could have been justified in isolation, but when taken as a whole, it starts to look like there's something wrong.

Have you read the report? If you do, you'd see that even the EF was given some concession or the other. Why? Because as the CAG says, the ASQR were a mix match of various attributes/features that no fighter could match in entirety!!Furthermore, lets just bring in some real world awareness, to cross check CAGs analysis, not everything is fully in synch with what we commonly see. Bids are submitted all the time with "missing rows" and "columns" with frantic discussions going on in the back about extra time/discussions to fill in the missing pieces. The customers allow it because they don't want to lose out on a good offer because of paperwork & the prices stay more competitive. That's what happened here. The concessions were around the paper work, which were fixed & Dassault then agreed to meet IAFs other requirements as well.

Two of the costliest bids got picked for a requirement that was originally meant for Mirage 2000.

So? How is that the IAFs fault? The IAF completely makes the point repeatedly that it wants the Mirage 2000 (ignoring its future needs BTW) but is then asked to make a RFP for a multivendor deal, does so, looking at what it could possibly want & you have to pay for quality.

One of the rejection criteria was entirely subjective, while the other was not informed to the bidders and was left undocumented. If any of the other contenders, with the probable exception of F/A-18, had made the shortlist, there was no chance of Rafale being L-1.

Which criteria was subjective? Which wasn't informed? Why don't you mention specifics?

Rafale's bid was incomplete, allowing it to be incorrectly judged as the lowest bidder. MoD officials would never have had to extrapolate if Dassault had submitted all the requested details.

That is MOD's choice to make. In the real world this is a very common occurrence and usually leads to frantic negotiations between the customer and the vendor, often with dollops of threats ("you will get dropped etc") and its not uncommon for senior management to get involved as well if they feel the bid team is making a mess. On the customers side as well, it requires a lot of effort in keeping everything running. What the MOD did was simple, they made things easier for themselves, and extrapolated to close out the process as soon as possible.. and later, the realization was "oh, shoot, we extrapolated the figures, this makes the whole thing a mess" and since nobody wanted to own up to the process, it got stuck.

Anyone looking through the entire CAG report would note 3 things.

First, the way the DPP is set up is too rigid, making it a disaster because the MOD is going to keep running up single vendor procurements and to avoid, that has to jump through hoops, cancelling procurement after procurement because "single vendor". Second, we badly need a technology cell at the IAF which does this sort of thing for a living 24/7, and does not rely on officers pulled in from staff responsibilities. Three, MOD is unable to handle the quantum of responsibilities involved in an overly long and complex process.

The MMRCA is just one of the many deals stuck in the same mess. Adherence to process is all, while common sense sits over there on a wall, because we need our pension and no allegations of corruption thanks much. Or even worse, theres corruption making sure that a guy asks inconvenient questions and delays the file with notes making everyone scared.. take your pick. Same result either way, disarmament via MOD.

If there were more than 2 jets shortlisted, Dassault's bid could have been easily rejected without risking cancellation due to "single vendor". Even after all this, there were still intractable issues due to Dassault's refusal to warranty as required by the RFP, leading to MMRCA's cancellation.

Err.. not quite. Read the report. Dassault didn't refuse diddly. They just did what many lazy a$4 sales teams do, they kick the ball upstairs to management, say no data so we didn't submit, and then come running back saying "k, here's what we can do". You can call it unprofessional, but pretty much everyone who has dealt with Dassault, India, Taiwan, the Algerians (iirc competing against the F-16s which were eventually bought), then of course the infamous spat with the UAE guys..its always the same stories about "Gallic arrogance", this, that. Not unique to India.

As this proposal was being submitted for approval of RM, Ministry received (April 2009) a suo moto representation from M/s Dassault for reconsideration of its proposal, stating that it was willing to modify the aircraft to meet all the ASQR parameters and was willing to comply all RFP requirements. During discussions with the Vendor, deficiencies in additional ASQR parameters were realised by the MoD making the total deficiencies in 14 parameters. Ministry forwarded the representation to IAF for examination by TEC. In the additional TEC report received by Ministry on 13 May 2009, TEC recommended that technical proposal of M/s DA met the requirements of RFP. It further stated that the feasibility and modalities of implementing the modification proposed by the vendor may be verified during field evaluation trials and additional commercial proposal from the vendor may be accepted after due process. Subsequently, waiver on deviations from ASQR and RFP conditions in respect of five vendors and the proposal to accept the additional commercial offer of M/s, DA was approved by RM on 28 May 20

Further, it was in India's interest to keep the Rafale in play. Both as a price "stalking horse" and also because multiple Indian teams have evaluated it, flown it (including a LCA TP and a former NCS) and all rated it very highly.

The American birds were always dicey, sanctions wise.

Now this is where it gets interesting.

Audit noted that, Para 35 of DPP-2006, states that the technical offer once submitted should not be materially changed subsequently; however, minor variations which do not affect the basic character/profile of the offer may be accepted. It further stipulates that no extra time should be given to any vendor to upgrade his products to make it compliant with QRs and the original commercial quote submitted earlier must also remain firm and fixed. Hence, Audit noted that the opportunity provided to M/s Dassault Aviation to significantly modify its technical and price bid was in violation of DPP. Ministry in its reply stated that it was not a violation of DPP and that it was approved by the highest decision making body ‘the DAC’. However, Para 35 of the DPP allows for only minor deviations which do not affect the basis character or materially change the bid. But M/s DA was allowed to bring about enhancements of 14 parameters which, ultimately was to cost over ‘XX’ million €. Hence M/s DA was treated preferentially. The firm attributed these modifications to the unique requirements of the IAF and called them Indian Specific Enhancements (ISEs). However, Audit noted that the Indian requirements, while they might not have been available in Rafale, were not unique because most of these features were available in the other 5 aircraft that were evaluated. For instance, Helmet Mounted Display62 was available in all modern fighter aircraft including Eurofighter.

This is where I have always maintained the bureaucrats at MOD doing their "protect yourselves guys lets make a very detailed DPP" made an overly restrictive process which beancounters like CAG obsess over and second, the CAG guys themselves have no clue of what they are talking of but are fully confident anyhow! Do they even understand or care about the fact that just because "all vendors" claim to have something, its not necessarily going to be there & the actual trials that would have followed would have shown up that some vendors didn't have anything functional, just filled in the bid documents, and by kicking Dassault out early, we would have been left high & dry? But no, this is CAG, the immortal CAG, which objected to India buying FSAPDS in 1999 because its for tanks and tanks don't fight in the mountains, never mind the war could have extended elsewhere. Which is why I & many others read their reports for info, not their claims or analysis. Also note, most not all. In the Indian L-1 process, and now this asinine multi-vendor thing, you can't set specs too high.. because then, no multi-vendor deal. And if you keep specs low, then yeah you have to choose L-1. Think of the balancing act AHQ has to do with the ASQRs. And after that, CAG still complains they weren't good enough.

AFAIK, Saab dropped its pitch when Pakistan started buying JF-17 and has been entirely focussed on India.

Is that entire focus also how SAAB is supporting Pakistan with Erieye and doing a solid presentation at IDEAS and hawking all sorts of stuff to Pakistan? Rest assured, moment India drops the Gripen and Pakistan says it has money, SAAB guys will turn up in Pakistan.

You really have to be digging deep to find a silver lining to say that knowledge of jets that Pakistan might have access to is worth a long and tortuous bid program. This isn't the 60s and 70s any more, India's economic power far outstrips Pakistan's, making overt material support to it unappealing.

I mean are you serious? You do realize that for all the talk of India's economic power far outstripping Pakistan, literally the who's who of the arms market sells to *everyone* until and unless India steps in with a counter-offer. Do you really think we have the economic wherewithal or a coherent policy to punish countries, ecosystems and vendors from doing business in Pakistan. Take a look at the JF-17. Its RWR is from Indra. The same company which was working with BEL a few years back. I mean I could literally quote a 100 examples where a country, firm has sold something to Pakistan and turned around and sold something fancier to India, then something to Pakistan.Second, using bid programs to get info is an industry practice across industries & India particularly needs this info for both protecting itself & also benchmarking itself against the world, this is not available in any DRDO literature survey or any vendor presentation at a high level. This is detailed granular data at a level no country outside NATO has received in recent years. We have it, and we will use it to our advantage. Besides which the bid program didn't fail because "Dassault". It failed because our processes are too rigid & unable to deal with complexity.

For instance, do you know the DPP mandates that once L-1 is decided no changes can be made, and we can't even go back to the L-2 and renegotiate? Nobody does this in the private sector. If a vendor acts smart, you walk off & go back to the other guy and of course you talk. It keeps everyone honest and on their toes. The DPP prohibits this. Because they are afraid "corrupt vendors" will force a renegotiation.. but they didn't seek to include a clause to protect us from the "honest vendor who charges too much" or "mistake made when tabulating stuff".

Bottomline, our process was/is broken making single vendor IGAs the go-forward most likely.

You can attribute blame for Dassault being incorrectly chosen as L-1 to MoD instead of IAF, but the technical evaluation was entirely IAF's responsibility.

At this point I must ask you to go read the document.

After opening of the Technical Bid, the first stage of technical evaluation involves comparison of the bid with the prescribed ASQR by the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC). All those bids which meet the ASQRs are qualified for the next stage Report No. 3 of 2019 (Performance Audit) 115of Field Evaluation Trials (FETs) where the aircraft are subjected to flight tests as per the already defined protocol. At the end of trials a Field Evaluation Trial (FET) report is submitted. Based on the FET report the final technical assessment of the Air Force is submitted in the form of Staff Evaluation Report (SER). Issues in these evaluations are highlighted in the succeeding paragraphs. 4.1 Deficiencies in Technical Evaluation (TEC) In the Technical Evaluation conducted in May 2008, five of the six aircraft61 could not meet all the ASQR parameters. The other four aircraft had one to two deviations, Rafale aircraft could not meet 9 ASQR parameters prescribed in the RFP. Further, it did not submit the data for Manufacturers List of Spares and Engineering Support Package. Due to this noncompliance, the TEC rejected Rafale. The Technical Manager Air [TM(Air)], Ministry while examining the TEC report raised certain queries regarding non-compliance of ASQRs of various aircraft and directed the TEC to review its evaluation accordingly. After obtaining clarification from the vendors, the TEC in March 2009 upheld its technical evaluation report which again rejected Rafale aircraft. TM (Air) again sought clarification (12 March 2009) on the warranty and option clause of the Bids submitted by vendors. After obtaining these clarifications from vendors, TEC again reviewed its report and upheld its decision to reject the bid of M/s DA for Rafale aircraft (25 March 2009). On subsequent clarifications obtained from the vendors, out of the 9 ASQR parameters on which Rafale was rejected, M/s DA offered to modify six of the parameters to meet the ASQR requirements. The firm offered to give additional commercial proposal for making these changes. It stated that the aircraft made to NATO specifications required customisation to meet the needs of IAF. But still it could not meet three of the ASQR parameters. The vendor agreed to supply Engineering Support Package (ESP) and Manufacturer Recommended List of Spares (MRLS) data. However, it still did not comply to the warranty and option clauses specified in the RFP. In view of the above, in March 2009, it was decided by Ministry to reject the technical bid of M/s DA and get waiver of RM on some non-compliance to the ASQRs in the bids of four vendors (EADS, Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Gripen). As this proposal was being submitted for approval of RM, Ministry received (April 2009) a suo moto representation from M/s Dassault for reconsideration of its proposal, stating that it was willing to modify the aircraft to meet all the ASQR parameters and was willing to comply all RFP requirements.

In short, the TEC rejected Dassault multiple times & Dassault (with obvious support of the French Govt) came running back and saying nope, heres the additional stuff, just like you asked.

That guy Joshi whoever wrote the "CAG analysis" again forwarded out by another self promoter Angad Singh, clearly has no prior awareness of how these things happen in the real world. Bids are in play till the last moment.

The IAF also publicly rejected Parrikar's plans to buy more Su-30MKI to cover for MMRCA's cancellation and insisted on Rafale, which led to the emergency buy.

And why wouldn't they. Are you aware of the amount of stuff that's being fixed with the Su-30s over the past few years (thankfully, with quite a lot done), the costs involved & also that the Su-30 upgrade will again need the IOC/FOC process ... in contrast, the Rafale comes tested, ready with weapons like the Meteor which even an upgraded Su-30 won't have (the RVV-BD is nothing but a bomber knock down missile). India has always maintained a dual procurement strategy to prevent one vendor from getting too much control on its fleet. If something goes wrong with one vendor/country, the whole fleet would go down otherwise. The IAF wasn't born yesterday.. they make mistakes but are often very careful about their choices.

Rakesh, India should ask one thing at a time. Maybe a b2b deal with an Indian pvt sector for 'hot section' metals. Then there will come LPcompressor stuff for which we may have to collaborate in another another program.

One thing at a time, is something that is deliverable. Asking to transfer entire engine tech is a joke and is not happening because lot of such tech cannot be quantified, and monetized. We just need to stick to the program like the Chinese, we will mess up once in a while and taste success until the next glitch. But we will have an alternative.

Habal, asking for one thing at a time is nice in theory. But one has to be wise in what they are asking for. The main reason for the JETJWG (Jet Engine Technology Joint Working Group) to be shut down was because India wanted the technology from the hot section of the engine, but US was not willing to do so. Forget the entire engine, India wanted technology on a component of the engine. And even the component was a no-no. One should NOT expect magic solutions, no matter how money we are willing to give to an OEM. I mentioned this to Austin, in another thread, and I reproduce below....

Rakesh wrote:Austin, companies like Raytheon, General Electric, Lockheed Martin are not Mother Teresa's home for the Poor, Aged and Downtrodden.

These are 100% For-Profit organizations who have a direct responsibility to their shareholders. They are not going to hand out their intellectual property (IP) to India, no matter how much money is offered to them. This is their bread-and-butter business.

Handing this over to India on a silver platter, will create another competitor in the international market. And with that knowledge, we Indians will do it for waaaay cheaper. Who will want the American products at that point?

Already they have to deal with Rolls Royce, Snecma-Safran, Thales, Dassault, Airbus, Sukhoi, Mikoyan, etc, etc, etc. None of these companies are remotely interested in having yet another player in the international market.

nachiket wrote:Karan, I think my original point, which got lost in our back and forth, was to counter Austin's assertion that the IAF is a fighter jock's club who don't care about fleet rationalization, logistical difficulties etc. That is definitely not the case as far as the MMRCA competition was concerned since they did not even want that competition in the first place and only wanted to buy an already existing type in large numbers.

Agree completely.. Austin's comment was totally inaccurate.

What you say is true. ON the other hand, despite the lack of support for integration, the IAF still chose the M2k for rapidly integrating the LGB's during Kargil. We had 2 platforms in large numbers which were supposed to be our premier strike jets - Mig-27 and Jaguar. Yet we could not use either and had to turn to the Mirages when push came to shove. And the aircraft came through with flying colors. 20 years later, we still see the IAF turning to them immediately when the time came to fire a shot in anger. Clearly the IAF is extremely impressed with the performance of the aircraft in actual battle conditions and their reliability as well (despite using some of the oldest engines in the fleet no less). It made perfect sense to ask for large numbers of these back when the IAF put forward the proposal in the aftermath of the Kargil war.

That's because at the time, the M2k had the 1553 DB and a Glass cockpit with a CRT/HUD both. That allowed the integration of a LDP & also its display to be projected onto the cockpit without other flight/weapons information disappearing. The Jaguars got similar stuff only after DARIN-2 & the MiG-27s post upgrade. That apart, the flight performance of the FBW deltas, their superb nav-attack suite, the integrated EW all played a role for them to be chosen.

Remember the original MRCA was never supposed to be the tip of the spear or the most advanced aircraft int he fleet. That job went to the MKI which was being customized with some freedom by the IAF and inducted in large numbers. The MRCA was to fill up the numbers and provide a cheaper to operate and maintain fleet of multi-role jets with decent performance. The M2k fit the bill perfectly. Plus, being an existing type it would not face any of the issues a new type invariable does during induction and operationalization.

I have a different take on this. This was the same time the MKIs were just coming in, highly delayed and with all sorts of teething issues & the IAF saw the Mirage 2000 V Mk2, its original competitor to the Su-30 MKI, as a good fit to hold the line while the Su's got fixed and also built up numbers. Today, thanks to Parrikar sir's intervention, we have the serviceability numbers up, and a lot of stuff to get the Su's even more potent.

No the M2k's don't come cheap but you get what you pay for. The IAF had a fair idea of both their performance and serviceability and were satisfied with both. Back in the early 2000's the memory of post-pokhran sanctions were still fresh. I doubt the prospect of looking at any American aircraft had crossed anyone's mind in the IAF. Their entry into the later multi-vendor procurement was also a surprise. So what options did they have? The only realistic ones were the M2k and Mig-29M. The Mig-29's hanger-queen days in the 90's were not so long ago and the IAF clearly did not want to go through that pain again. They had already decided on the MKI as the top tier of the IAF so looking at cutting edge (and expensive) fighters like the Rafale and EF did not make sense. And if we can't afford more than 36 Rafales today, pining for 126 back then would be foolish. Unfortunately that is exactly what we ended up doing thanks to the DPP which provides no scope of looking at financial bids and doing a realistic assessment of own financial capacity compared to that, before the technical downselect is done.

I think a key factor about why the Mirage 2000s were preferred is that they are supported by the overall French armaments complex which is top notch. They have stuff & they integrate it for you if you can afford it. The Mirage 2000 comes with a ready EW suite, ready weapons, ready everything. IAF wanted this "off the shelf" ready to go fighter capability which was still potent.The other thing though was while IAF was clearly counting on the MKI for its edge, given how things have changed, the timelines involved and where we are today, we have no other option but to go for the Rafale, but of course there is pappu politics.. so its anybodys guess if the EF or whatever comes in. I hope not the Gripen or the MiG-35. One is sanctions by proxy & the other, will be more dependence on UAC.

As for an edge over the AMRAAM armed F-16s, there isn't a single fighter in the IAF today which has a decisive edge over them, and, as you say, is the result of the IAF dropping the ball on this matter and not taking the threat seriously enough. In the next few years, we will have a puny 2 squadrons of fighters which will finally have a real advantage. In return for that we gave up having a 160 strong fleet of M2k-5's all through this decade and part of the last one. Best is the enemy of good enough applies in this case IMHO.

Yeah fair point, but once Astra & the Indian EW fit come through (after D-29 success I have my hopes up, and fingers crossed, no jinx), i do think the Bars + Su-30 kinematics + their datalinks will again turn the balance of power towards us. The EW suite was supposed to be ready this year, and hopefully the AF is rational and puts Astra Mk1 into series production ASAP instead of dusting off Meteor and asking for an equivalent right away. I am really really hoping that if Russia does not have a ready AESA to give us, we only take a limited fleet upgrade for some 40-50 Su-30s with Irbis/Bars-R or whatever and LRDE is asked to supersize their AESA FCR. A Su-30 sized Uttam won't be anything to sneeze at. It's effective aperture will be over 2x higher than that of the LCA. Add greater power availability (hopefully) and we should be looking at some pretty good performance.

This is true, but remember that the aircraft that was supposed to give us parity or an advantage over the PLAAF's stealth jets was the FGFA which never materialized. The MMRCA was not meant for that. Even the Rafale will struggle against a true LO 5th gen aircraft although the real world capabilities of the J-20 and J-31 are not yet known.

Here i disagree, I think the AF did a careful assessment of J-20 vs Rafale vs FGFA and decided the FGFA was just too much trouble and not worth the risk. They are basically confident the Rafale can handle the J-20 & we have two "serious" sources which are matching each other (parallel confirmation) on the same point that the J-20 is not a real stealth aircraft. We had the CAS (Dhanoa sir) say that & point to its canard placement as problematic (f.e.) and then the recent report Raman posted from two NATO researchers which says the same thing (these guys though speaking minimum tech jargon would have had access to loads of folks to talk to). In short, its Rafale for us which is a reduced RCS bird & which via EW, sensor fusion, tactics etc is meant to be a J-20 killer. And it has Mica IR + IRST, arguably the only BVR missile + IRST combo today, completely passive and with an IIR sensor suitable against RF stealth optimized threats.And then there is Occam's razor. If the J-20 was indeed an all singing, dancing platform, why even buy the Su-35 and that too, 48 of them!

Sahay, Most of the things you are calling facts are wrong interpretation that you picked up from the DDM articles.

Rafale aircraft was not given any concessions, it met all of the ASQRs to IAF’s satisfaction.

You can’t call Rafale and Eurofighter two of the most expensive bids because you don’t know what other’s quoted. Their Bids were returned unopened.

I can go on and on but would truth make any difference to you? Read the report for yourself and understand what is said in what context. Read my posts in the last page about what was the issues with the Rafale bid documents and how it was all addressed within the DPP rules. DPP has two paragraphs that talks about waivers that can be given to correct the documents. Para 35 is more stingent and asks to avoid it but Para 75 is more generous in the interest of keeping competition.

The two issues (HAL manhour and warranty) that couldn’t be resolved with in the DPP rules caused the deal to eventually fail.

Another fact for you - EADS has quoted higher price for the flyaway aircrafts too. That was the reason for them offering 20% discount later to compete with Rafale for Modi govt’s 36 aircraft deal

Rakesh wrote:So what collaboration are you expecting on the Tempest program? What do you see different?

Many get duped - on this forum, in the media and even in the govt - into this ToT (Transfer of Technology) nonsense. Never before has a term been so maligned and misunderstood as ToT has been. There has never been Transfer of Technology to India and never will be.

I have pasted the essential part of your long post. That HAL's chequered licence built history over numerous types of fighter aircraft has resulted in no transfer of technology. You are correct. But please point out to me as to where in my post I have stated that India should ask for or expect TOT in a presumptive collaboration with the BAE Tempest consortium? You have probably attributed to me what numerous other posters have posted in the past without really reading my post. Because I also believe that technology built up over decades is not available no matter how much money you are willing to pay for it and so RR, MBDA et al are not going to hand over their crown jewels no matter what the price is.

So what are the benefits then from a collaboration? Why do countries/companies collaborate? Why does not every single country/company build the full aircraft from the ground up, airframe, engines, sensors. weapons etc. etc. I can think of a few.

1)A partner country who is a potential customer for such a fighter, gets an input into the performance characteristics, weapon systems and sensors at the design stage itself so that the plane will more fully meet it's requirements.

2) Development cost is shared by many partners and to it is possible to sink in higher developmental costs and thereby hopefully develop a more advanced aircraft.

3) A single country barring somebody like the US and France up until now at least does not have the the expertise in-country to develop an aircraft on their own.

4) It is IMO in India's interest that there is at least 1 other potential manufacturer/consortium with a 6th generation aircraft on the drawing boards other than the US and probably China. The Russians IMO frankly no longer have it. The SU-57 is a case in point. If Germany does not pony up cash, I doubt that the French on their own will get a successor to the Rafale and if they do I can assure you that 36 of those aircraft will cost Euro 20 billion.

5) And yes, the Brits do not have the money, but they have the technology and the ability to put it together. And that precisely why from a financial standpoint you could get a deal with them. You get a deal only when both sides need something that the other has. Try talking to Uncle Sam about a collaboration!!.

6) Learning best practices. Just as the IAF exercises with other air forces to learn best practices, I see only benefits if Indian companies, both government and private sector collaborate with foreign entities.

7) Aircraft technology is a moving target, 5th gen and now 6th generation designs on the drawing board. Why not consider it as a venture capital investment? Is $250 million or even $500 million not a cheap option, when you have national security as the payoff in such a scenario? At the end of say 5 years, either the option will have expired or it will be deep into the money.

Rakesh wrote:So what collaboration are you expecting on the Tempest program? What do you see different?

Many get duped - on this forum, in the media and even in the govt - into this ToT (Transfer of Technology) nonsense. Never before has a term been so maligned and misunderstood as ToT has been. There has never been Transfer of Technology to India and never will be.

I have pasted the essential part of your long post. That HAL's chequered licence built history over numerous types of fighter aircraft has resulted in no transfer of technology. You are correct. But please point out to me as to where in my post I have stated that India should ask for or expect TOT in a presumptive collaboration with the BAE Tempest consortium? You have probably attributed to me what numerous other posters have posted in the past without really reading my post. Because I also believe that technology built up over decades is not available no matter how much money you are willing to pay for it and so RR, MBDA et al are not going to hand over their crown jewels no matter what the price is.

So what are the benefits then from a collaboration? Why do countries/companies collaborate? Why does not every single country/company build the full aircraft from the ground up, airframe, engines, sensors. weapons etc. etc. I can think of a few.

1)A partner country who is a potential customer for such a fighter, gets an input into the performance characteristics, weapon systems and sensors at the design stage itself so that the plane will more fully meet it's requirements.

2) Development cost is shared by many partners and to it is possible to sink in higher developmental costs and thereby hopefully develop a more advanced aircraft.

3) A single country barring somebody like the US and France up until now at least does not have the the expertise in-country to develop an aircraft on their own.

4) It is IMO in India's interest that there is at least 1 other potential manufacturer/consortium with a 6th generation aircraft on the drawing boards other than the US and probably China. The Russians IMO frankly no longer have it. The SU-57 is a case in point. If Germany does not pony up cash, I doubt that the French on their own will get a successor to the Rafale and if they do I can assure you that 36 of those aircraft will cost Euro 20 billion.

5) And yes, the Brits do not have the money, but they have the technology and the ability to put it together. And that precisely why from a financial standpoint you could get a deal with them. You get a deal only when both sides need something that the other has. Try talking to Uncle Sam about a collaboration!!.

6) Learning best practices. Just as the IAF exercises with other air forces to learn best practices, I see only benefits if Indian companies, both government and private sector collaborate with foreign entities.

7) Aircraft technology is a moving target, 5th gen and now 6th generation designs on the drawing board. Why not consider it as a venture capital investment? Is $250 million or even $500 million not a cheap option, when you have national security as the payoff in such a scenario? At the end of say 5 years, either the option will have expired or it will be deep into the money.

the brits see you as the one that got away and more importantly, rightly or wrongly, as the sole reason for bringing their empire down.

they are going to give you nothing. Track their deeds since independence and understand clearly how they have sought to hobble you.

Now that the whiteys see you moving ahead, in spite of their best efforts, NO TECHNOLOGY of the kind you are hoping to get will ever be transferred.

you have no option but to do it on your own.

Why have all countries ganged up so purposefully to deny you technology??

We made headway in space and nuclear tech, not because of them but in spite of them.

Karan M wrote:Pretty much everything in the above has happened with the Rafale deal. Co-incidence?

This is slightly philosophical, but here goes.

I read somewhere that the most important indicator of a developed tribe/city/society/country is the ability to organize itself for the maximum/fastest benefit for itself. And this organizing process also includes adapting/eliminating existing institutions to change so that they can meet more fully the challenges of the changing environment around you. Everything else, technology, money etc. flows from successfully managing your own institutions. And so you have to get rid of moribund institutions that no longer serve the country's purpose and adapt. IMO, that is India's achilles heel. The US today is moving towards gridlock, but they have built up such huge reserves of capital and technology that they can afford to coast along. India cannot.

ldev wrote:I have pasted the essential part of your long post. That HAL's chequered licence built history over numerous types of fighter aircraft has resulted in no transfer of technology. You are correct. But please point out to me as to where in my post I have stated that India should ask for or expect TOT in a presumptive collaboration with the BAE Tempest consortium? You have probably attributed to me what numerous other posters have posted in the past without really reading my post. Because I also believe that technology built up over decades is not available no matter how much money you are willing to pay for it and so RR, MBDA et al are not going to hand over their crown jewels no matter what the price is.

I am saying that India will never get ToT from any nation. And I am saying that India will never get any ToT of value on the Tempest program.

And honestly, if no one country is going to (and why should they?) then what is the point of the collaboration? But since you have raised points in your post below on various areas of collaborations, I will address those there.

ldev wrote:So what are the benefits then from a collaboration? Why do countries/companies collaborate? Why does not every single country/company build the full aircraft from the ground up, airframe, engines, sensors. weapons etc. etc. I can think of a few.

Okay, so then why were the following aircraft developed from the ground up by one single country?

1) MiG-292) Su-30MKI3) F-164) F-185) F-225) Rafale

All of the above have been largely successful programs. All of the above had different companies contributing to the program, but they all came from one country. The only exception being the ejection seat (Martin Baker, which is British) on the French and the American planes. However the rest of the aircraft - from engine to radar to sensors to airframe or basically anything of value - are from one country. With the first two in the list, the entire aircraft (including the ejection seats) - are Russian.

Now let us look at some collaborations...

1) Eurofighter Typhoon. I believe I explained in brief in my earlier post. But one can ask google chacha on how wonderful that program is progressing. And please ensure you benchmark the progress against the Rafale, its other European brother. Please look up on how the four nation consortium - in which benevolent England was a clear participant - could not agree on much.

2) PAK-FA (Sukhoi Su-57). A joint collaboration between India and Russia. Again, both parted ways and Russia is developing it on her own. India has said it may buy it in the future once development is fully complete. But no collaboration happened. If we buy them, we will buy them as is, off the shelf.

3) New Generation Fighter (6th generation program), a program between France and Germany to replace the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Dassault Rafale. Trouble is brewing and they are only in model/conceptual stage -->

4) Medium Transport Aircraft (Ilyushin IL-276). A joint collaboration between India and Russia. Both parted ways and Russia is developing it on her own. India will likely buy it or the An-132 in the future, to replace her An-32s currently in service. But no collaboration happened. If we buy them, we will buy them as is, off the shelf.

5) Despite the partner-nation collaboration concept, the F-35 is an all American plane.

The engine - across all three variants of the F-35 - is the Pratt & Whitney F135 turbofan. An American company. The radar - across all three variants of the F-35 - is the AN/APG-81 AESA from Raytheon. An American company. The air-to-air weaponry is American, with MBDA providing the Meteor and the AIM-132 ASRAAM to complement the AIM-120 and the AIM-9X. That is largely to placate European customers who will use the MBDA missile systems. Most of the air-to-ground weaponry is also American, but other air-to-ground weaponry is being developed by MBDA for European customers. Again for the same reason.

But no America, no F-35. The American Govt is the largest investor in the F-35 program. Even if no other nation joined, they would have still seen the program to completion. They have the money to invest and take the risk of a cost overrun, regardless of the number. America can afford this.

Now where is the UK's economic prowess compared to America? It is in the shitter because of Brexit and even prior to that. So I ask you again ---> If a future UK Govt had to do a budget choice between the F-35 and the Tempest program, which do you think has a greater chance of survival? An actual working, in-service aircraft or some model in development?

Where will that leave India?

ldev wrote:1) A partner country who is a potential customer for such a fighter, gets an input into the performance characteristics, weapon systems and sensors at the design stage itself so that the plane will more fully meet it's requirements.

Please explain in greater detail on what inputs exactly on performance characteristics, weapon systems and sensors at the design stage that India would benefit from. I would love to know, so please explain. This is the same benevolent England that refused to sell India more advanced aircraft or radar/sensors over the previous decades.

Would the British allow us to incorporate future variants of the Astra BVR missile into the Tempest? Or would it end up like the episode where MBDA/Thales refused to incorporate the Meteor on the Tejas (all because of the Israeli AESA on the upcoming Mk1A variant)?

ldev wrote:2) Development cost is shared by many partners and to it is possible to sink in higher developmental costs and thereby hopefully develop a more advanced aircraft.

Nice in theory, but let us put it into practise shall we?

I am sure India's share of the development costs will come to a minimum of US $1 billion. This is a sixth generation program and all the tech on-board is still not yet even fully conceived. At every stage in the Eurofighter Typhoon development, the four nation consortium were non-committal from production to on-board tech to weaponry. For example, the Euroradar CAPTOR-E is still under development while Indian Rafale F3Rs are coming in 6+ months with Thales' RBE2 AESA radar.

Now what will the work share agreement look like? The British have already pointed in that direction. Coding Software! Why? Because it is cheaper to have Indian software engineers write the code than doing it elsewhere, especially in the UK. Nice cost saving measure on the part of the British. But what does India get in return exactly?

Out of that $1 billion, will Rolls Royce invest any money into GTRE to developing an engine?

Out of that $1 billion, will Leonardo S.p.A. invest any money into LRDE to developing a GaN foundry?

Since neither are going to happen and those are the two areas where India requires the greatest investment and serious development, it is better to invest that $1 billion into GTRE and LRDE. With money towards military programs being scarce in India, it is unwise to invest in a collaboration that will give India little value.

ldev wrote:3) A single country barring somebody like the US and France up until now at least does not have the the expertise in-country to develop an aircraft on their own.

Barring the radar and the engine, India has more or less overcome the challenges in aircraft development. That is clearly evident in the growth path shown in the Tejas Program.

From a Technology Demonstrator in the Tejas program, India now has the following;

* Tejas Mk1 ---> Tejas Mk1A ---> Tejas Mk2* And now there is an offshoot program called the HAL SPORT, a LIFT type Trainer* Development lessons learnt above, but not the tech, will be applied into the AMCA program

From a Technology Demonstrator in the Advanced Light Helicopter program, India now has the following;

* HAL Dhruv ---> HAL Rudra ---> HAL Light Combat Helicopter ---> HAL Light Utility Helicopter* And now there is a program to develop the Indian Multi Role Helicopter (IMRH).

Had we followed Lockheed Martin's advice in the 90s (to end the Tejas program), how much of the above - in the Tejas program - would have seen the light of day? And while benevolent England has invested its scarce resources into the F-35 program, she has come offering collaboration on the Tempest program to the two nations - India and Japan - that have 5th generation fighter programs of their own. I wonder why!

Rather than waste money into Maasa's Poodle Project, it is wiser to invest that money into an Indian aircraft program. We have achieved success is developing our own AESA radar - the Uttam. The first iteration will not be anywhere close to nirvana such as the AN/APG-81 AESA from Raytheon is, but we will improve it in future iterations. But you have to start somewhere. Same is true for the Kaveri program. What India needs is assistance in engine and radars, neither of which any country - including my philanthropic friends from La France - is willing to provide. Then why waste money on anything else?

ldev wrote:4) It is IMO in India's interest that there is at least 1 other potential manufacturer/consortium with a 6th generation aircraft on the drawing boards other than the US and probably China. The Russians IMO frankly no longer have it. The SU-57 is a case in point. If Germany does not pony up cash, I doubt that the French on their own will get a successor to the Rafale and if they do I can assure you that 36 of those aircraft will cost Euro 20 billion.

Where do you expect India to cough up money for this program, in light of all the below;

And these are just aircraft programs. There are naval programs (next generation carrier), army programs (FMBT, FICV, etc) and other air force programs (Super Sukhoi upgrade).

From where do you expect India to pony up the cash, when all this is in the pipeline? And that too to chase a dream with an unreliable poodle, when India has far more urgent requirements.

ldev wrote:5) And yes, the Brits do not have the money, but they have the technology and the ability to put it together. And that precisely why from a financial standpoint you could get a deal with them. You get a deal only when both sides need something that the other has. Try talking to Uncle Sam about a collaboration!!

Uncle Sam and the Brits are two sides of the same coin Saar.

There is nothing that the UK can provide, without Uncle Sam giving the nod.

ldev wrote:6) Learning best practices. Just as the IAF exercises with other air forces to learn best practices, I see only benefits if Indian companies, both government and private sector collaborate with foreign entities.

Best practices are a two way street Saar. In this venture, we will provide cheap labour (coding software) while the UK gets an aircraft and gets to keep all the crown jewels of that aircraft. We will do screwdrivergiri on the aircraft and publish that in an annual MoD report, which will be available online in PDF format and in which many will get wowed. And like the Eurofighter Typhoon, she will like suffer from reliability and availability issues which will also get published in an annual CAG report.

ldev wrote:7) Aircraft technology is a moving target, 5th gen and now 6th generation designs on the drawing board. Why not consider it as a venture capital investment? Is $250 million or even $500 million not a cheap option, when you have national security as the payoff in such a scenario? At the end of say 5 years, either the option will have expired or it will be deep into the money.

Please show us the money. All nice in theory, but the money has to be there.

Karan M wrote:This seems to be our procurement process in a nutshell at times. CIA's guidelines for bureaucratic sabotage.

The worst part is that our officialdom, whether they are bureaucrats or psu employees or even the lowly clerks, have actually internalized these traits and that too without even being on CIA's payroll.

This is their default behaviour and trust me they do not need any sponsorship from so called foreign intelligence agencies.

Karan M wrote:This seems to be our procurement process in a nutshell at times. CIA's guidelines for bureaucratic sabotage.

The worst part is that our officialdom, whether they are bureaucrats or psu employees or even the lowly clerks, have actually internalized these traits and that too without even being on CIA's payroll.

This is their default behaviour and trust me they do not need any sponsorship from so called foreign intelligence agencies.

Thats what the was handed over by the british east india babus to keep the domestic industry in check..still going on.. the CIA adopted the british east india strategies not the other way around

Guys for India best move going forward is involvement of private sector in defense production/manufacturing while DRDO and ADA along with select academic institutions will focus on R&D and all TD/IOC phase of the program.

FOC can again be done by a private company selected for manufacturing the aircraft.

HAL needs to be reduced to MRO organization for legacy aircrafts (Migs, Jags, MKI, M2Ks etc). For new ones like Rafale (if bought in numbers), AMCA rope in private sector and make them collaborate directly with DRDO/ADA

We need to pick our areas in which we want to excel and become state of the art soon:

Identify areas where we need collaboration (Best bet would be Russia, Israel and last France in that order. I wouldn't bother about any other nation)

Sensor and seekers of missile we are already collaborating with Russians.EW & EA (electronic attack/stand off jamming/escort jamming) lets collaborate with IsraelisAlso, for specialized avionics like HMS/D we can collaborate with IsraelisIRST again IsraelisRadar we can take help of Israel as well

Slowly, private companies when they have gained experience and have stake in the game can start by picking up complete products like: Targeting Pod, HMS/D and then run away with it.

No one will gives us core tech in these areas and when we achieve success neither will we hand it away to any one else. It's just as simple as this.

The going price of Su-35s seem to be around 100 million a piece with availability guarantees. There are now two deals which show this: Egyptian about 20 (24) fighters for a little over 2 billion and the 11 fighters to Indonesia for 1.1 billion.

Indranil wrote:The going price of Su-35s seem to be around 100 million a piece with availability guarantees. There are now two deals which show this: Egyptian about 20 (24) fighters for a little over 2 billion and the 11 fighters to Indonesia for 1.1 billion.

habal wrote:Rakesh, India should ask one thing at a time. Maybe a b2b deal with an Indian pvt sector for 'hot section' metals. Then there will come LPcompressor stuff for which we may have to collaborate in another another program.

One thing at a time, is something that is deliverable. Asking to transfer entire engine tech is a joke and is not happening because lot of such tech cannot be quantified, and monetized. We just need to stick to the program like the Chinese, we will mess up once in a while and taste success until the next glitch. But we will have an alternative.

it is very important to have alternatives.

the foolish goras sucked up to the hans big time and got nothing much in return to show for it. The hans led them by the proverbial nose, every single step of the way and the goras could not see it coming.

the goras had wet dreams of unfettered access to the cheeni markets. The cunning hans drew them into a trap already baited and the goras naively thought that they could buy off the natives with beads and trinkets and maybe some heroin, like in the olden days.

In the end, the hans gobbled up the internal markets of these gora countries who thought that they were doing an east India company number on the naive hans.

uncontrolled transfer of technology and silent acquiescence of IP theft by the west as well as the US has resulted in the creation of an evil monster like china whose naked ambition of world domination these gora guys have become powerless to impede or stop.

world domination was a term that one saw only in james bond novels but that is exactly what the hans are really up to, dominate the world so that the rest exist only to provide them markets for finished han goods, source of cheap raw materials and a passive conduit for projection of han military power like they are doing through the CPEC and gwadar.

Like royalty of yore, the world should exist only to serve han needs and pay tribute to them and be utterly subservient to their slightest whims and fancies.

Are the goras going to make the exact same mistake with India??

NO.

BTW, aren't we decades late to the same party?? All dressed up now and no place to go??

Karan M wrote:That's because at the time, the M2k had the 1553 DB and a Glass cockpit with a CRT/HUD both. That allowed the integration of a LDP & also its display to be projected onto the cockpit without other flight/weapons information disappearing. The Jaguars got similar stuff only after DARIN-2 & the MiG-27s post upgrade. That apart, the flight performance of the FBW deltas, their superb nav-attack suite, the integrated EW all played a role for them to be chosen.

All true. That is why I said that the IAF's request for a large purchase of these jets made perfect sense at the time. In 2019 we can say with hindsight that the Rafale provides much superior capability is a good purchase but back then (especially looking at our financial situation) the M2k-5 seemed like a much better choice.

The other thing though was while IAF was clearly counting on the MKI for its edge, given how things have changed, the timelines involved and where we are today, we have no other option but to go for the Rafale, but of course there is pappu politics.. so its anybodys guess if the EF or whatever comes in. I hope not the Gripen or the MiG-35. One is sanctions by proxy & the other, will be more dependence on UAC.

Yes, given the situation we are in right now, I hope we get 2 more Rafale squadrons and drop this MII SEF/MRCA2 or whatever alphabet soup acquisition program we are looking at. If the present government comes back after the elections I have hope that Nirmala maam will think on this with a cool head and make the right decision. If we get Pappu on the throne and some equally useless nincompoop in the MoD then get ready for another 10+ year boondoggle.

Yeah fair point, but once Astra & the Indian EW fit come through (after D-29 success I have my hopes up, and fingers crossed, no jinx), i do think the Bars + Su-30 kinematics + their datalinks will again turn the balance of power towards us. The EW suite was supposed to be ready this year, and hopefully the AF is rational and puts Astra Mk1 into series production ASAP instead of dusting off Meteor and asking for an equivalent right away. I am really really hoping that if Russia does not have a ready AESA to give us, we only take a limited fleet upgrade for some 40-50 Su-30s with Irbis/Bars-R or whatever and LRDE is asked to supersize their AESA FCR. A Su-30 sized Uttam won't be anything to sneeze at. It's effective aperture will be over 2x higher than that of the LCA. Add greater power availability (hopefully) and we should be looking at some pretty good performance.

I think the thing that hurt us the most here is the R-77 failures, leaving our premier air-superiority fighter vulnerable. The Astra came not a moment too soon. I think we have to give up hope of an AESA radar from the Russians for the Su-30. They are concentrating on their programs for the PAK-FA and don't have the bandwidth for working on an AESA version of the Irbis (or an upscaled version of the Zhuk-AE). It has to be Uttam.

Here i disagree, I think the AF did a careful assessment of J-20 vs Rafale vs FGFA and decided the FGFA was just too much trouble and not worth the risk. They are basically confident the Rafale can handle the J-20 & we have two "serious" sources which are matching each other (parallel confirmation) on the same point that the J-20 is not a real stealth aircraft. We had the CAS (Dhanoa sir) say that & point to its canard placement as problematic (f.e.) and then the recent report Raman posted from two NATO researchers which says the same thing (these guys though speaking minimum tech jargon would have had access to loads of folks to talk to). In short, its Rafale for us which is a reduced RCS bird & which via EW, sensor fusion, tactics etc is meant to be a J-20 killer. And it has Mica IR + IRST, arguably the only BVR missile + IRST combo today, completely passive and with an IIR sensor suitable against RF stealth optimized threats.And then there is Occam's razor. If the J-20 was indeed an all singing, dancing platform, why even buy the Su-35 and that too, 48 of them!

The J-20 most certainly has its drawbacks. The rear-aspect stealth is nothing to write home about and the canards will affect the RCS too. In WVR, a Mig-29 will run rings around that lumbering giant.

Against that we have to remember that the front aspect stealth will still be better than any 4.5 gen aircraft including the Rafale, with weapons and EFT's hanging from pylons. Plus, the J-20 has a large nose with what will most certainly be a powerful radar and it will carry its weapons internally. I hope the IAF has not underestimate this like they perhaps underestimated the F-16's AMRAAM threat. In an ideal world the AMCA would be a strategic program like the Arihant, with PMO monitoring it, demanding good project management and holding people accountable while letting the funds flow like water and the IAF involved with every aspect of the program from the beginning. Then we wouldn't have to worry about anything. But we don't live in an ideal world, so let's see how it goes.

Karan M wrote:Pretty much everything in the above has happened with the Rafale deal. Co-incidence?

Reason is the MoD procurement cabal (Politicians, babus, officers, (arms dealers and fixers)) was doing its best to ensure its a crisis procurement of There is no Other Alternative(TINA).Late Manohar Parrikar saw the game and was fixing that. Then the fake Goa crisis came and he had to move out. But he was in constant consultation with MAD. We will see results after elections are over.

NS did a lot to change the system.Arjun Mk1A acceptance is her achievement.Plus the OFB humming along.The two defence hubs in UP and TN.